Advertisement
Front, Kernel, Security, Distributions, Development. See your byline here on LWN.net.
| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Bruce Perens: How Many Open Source Licenses Do You Need? (IT Management)Bruce Perens: How Many Open Source Licenses Do You Need? (IT Management)Posted Feb 18, 2009 10:57 UTC (Wed) by hppnq (subscriber, #14462)In reply to: Bruce Perens: How Many Open Source Licenses Do You Need? (IT Management) by BrucePerens Parent article: Bruce Perens: How Many Open Source Licenses Do You Need? (IT Management)
On the FAQ webpage it says that you cannot remove the copyright, and also the FSF does not seem to find anything funny about this license, which they classify as a "free copyleft license for fonts". Also note this 2006 discussion at LWN, where a similar strong-voiced but not so convincing case was made that this license should not be used. At the same time, of course, Linux distributions such as Debian include fonts distributed with this license. So what exactly is this loophole? Why isn't it fixed? Why exactly would this fall apart in a courtroom?
(Log in to post comments)
Bruce Perens: How Many Open Source Licenses Do You Need? (IT Management) Posted Feb 18, 2009 16:52 UTC (Wed) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link] On the FAQ webpage it says that you cannot remove the copyrightUnfortunately, a statement in the FAQ doesn't effect how a court would interpret the license. The license says this: The requirement for fonts to remain under this license does not apply to any document created using the Font Software.The effect of the above is that the license is entirely removed when the font is embedded in a document, and you get the choice of any license you wish. If you then extract the font from the document, you still have whatever license you used on the document. Sensible license creators, on being informed that there is text of dubious interpretation, would repair the text lest it be read in a way unintended in a court room. The SIL folks, however, only respond with "the developers wanted it that way". Bruce
Bruce Perens: How Many Open Source Licenses Do You Need? (IT Management) Posted Feb 18, 2009 21:40 UTC (Wed) by hppnq (subscriber, #14462) [Link] The requirement for fonts to remain under this license does not apply to any document created using the Font Software. Your train of thought is a bit like that of the guy they found with the smoking gun, claiming that he hadn't fired it and that the smoke was not from the gun. Say you extract the Font Software from the document, you are left with ... the Font Software, including the license it came with. If there were no license, you would not have been allowed to use the font in your document in the first place. It seems to me that now, you cannot prove that the license you extracted with the software is no longer applicable to the Font Software, because it was once embedded in a document. It is a wonderful license! I would not change it either. But I am not a lawyer, I would be interested to hear Eben Moglen's take on this. The intent here is obviously to avoid any uncertainty about the licensing of documents that use OFL licensed fonts, like there is a clause in the Python License about programs written in Python. Given the nature of documents and fonts, obviously something must be said about this use of the font, and frankly, I can't see how they could have made it much clearer.
Bruce Perens: How Many Open Source Licenses Do You Need? (IT Management) Posted Feb 18, 2009 21:58 UTC (Wed) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link] It's not that there is no license, it's that the license permits the transition to whatever license you wish to apply to a document, when you embed the font in the document. And there's nothing in the license that makes it go back to the original license again.If the situation isn't fixed, eventually I will just have to publish a site of public-domain versions of SIL-licensed fonts. Not because I don't like the developers, but just to warn others away from the license. Bruce
Bruce Perens: How Many Open Source Licenses Do You Need? (IT Management) Posted Feb 19, 2009 10:09 UTC (Thu) by hppnq (subscriber, #14462) [Link] What I was observing, is that indeed, it is possible to embed the Font Software in a document, put the document under license X, and then extract the Font Software again -- but that it would get you nowhere.Note that the only case the developers seem to want to protect themselves, is the distribution of copies that are hardly modified, to make a quick buck. So we are only looking at cases in which the extracted Font Software looks remarkably similar to the original work. Now the question is: how would you point out to a judge that your relicensed Font Software was once embedded in a document? You couldn't. The judge would, I hope, have to conclude that the non-applicability of the OFL is only ... applicable, when the Font Software is actually embedded in a document. Don't get me wrong: I do understand that there is an entire legal industry built on these simple matters, and I am just toying with these thoughts. But can I ask you why you don't ask a proper attorney to look at this matter, instead of making a blacklist?!
Bruce Perens: How Many Open Source Licenses Do You Need? (IT Management) Posted Feb 19, 2009 16:16 UTC (Thu) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link] how would you point out to a judge that your relicensed Font Software was once embedded in a document? It's very simple to document a process like this for legal purposes. I would create a shell script that carries out thed entire process: embeds font in document, extracts font again. I would place this script online with the intermediate components of the process: the original font, the document before the font is embedded, the document with embedded font, the extracted font. Processes are presented to courts in many cases. Bruce
Bruce Perens: How Many Open Source Licenses Do You Need? (IT Management) Posted Feb 19, 2009 17:12 UTC (Thu) by hppnq (subscriber, #14462) [Link] Maybe it's good to quote the entire requirement:
The OFL clearly states that it is only the document to which the license requirement is not applicable, and the only uncertainty is the precise relation between the document and the fonts used in the creation of that document. But thanks to your shell script any judge will now be able to clearly separate the Font Software and the document, so I rest my case. ;-)
Bruce Perens: How Many Open Source Licenses Do You Need? (IT Management) Posted Feb 19, 2009 17:34 UTC (Thu) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link] Only the one sentence that releases the license matters, because the rest of the license goes away, permanently, as a result of that sentence the moment the font is combined with a document. Nothing in the license can ever govern that copy of the font again, or descendants of that copy of the font, from that moment on.
Bruce Perens: How Many Open Source Licenses Do You Need? (IT Management) Posted Feb 19, 2009 20:11 UTC (Thu) by hppnq (subscriber, #14462) [Link] the rest of the license goes away, permanently, as a result of that sentence the moment the font is combined with a document That's not how I read it, but I am not a lawyer. So let's examine your favourite example, that exposes the truck-sized loophole: embedding a font by dropping it wholely in an OpenDocument zip. It seems trivial to do. As far as I can see there are three possibilities:
1) The font remains embedded in the document, modified or unmodified The first case is not a problem. This is what fonts are for. In the second case, you claim you can now relicense the Font Software, because you have just extracted it from a document. The license you are about to remove clearly refers to the document that you are still holding in your right hand, Font Software in the left. I think the judge will not accept this cheap conjury. The last case is the trickiest one. But unlike in this example, real-world examples would seem to require a non-trivial effort on the part of the abusing distributor. This is all the developers wanted. Whether or not it will stand up in court, like all legal matters, will ultimately only be decided in court, and not on websites or in licenses.
Bruce Perens: How Many Open Source Licenses Do You Need? (IT Management) Posted Feb 19, 2009 20:27 UTC (Thu) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link] 2) The font is extracted unmodified, i.e., including the original licenseIt's unmodified, but the original license isn't there any longer. Sorry, this is a result of what the license says. Now, if we brought this to court, you would be arguing from what you intended your license to say, and I would be arguing from what your license actually says. If you want to lose a case, having "do what I mean, not what I say" as an argument is an almost sure way to do it. It's unfortunate that the license is written in a way that a cheap conjuring act can disable it, but that's the case. Changing one sentence will fix it. The SIL group needs to get proper legal counsel and make that change.
Bruce Perens: How Many Open Source Licenses Do You Need? (IT Management) Posted Feb 20, 2009 9:17 UTC (Fri) by hppnq (subscriber, #14462) [Link] Now, if we brought this to court, you would be arguing from what you intended your license to say, and I would be arguing from what your license actually says. No. I would point to the clause in the Font Software license you are holding in your left hand, that says it does not apply to the document you are holding in your right hand. I would be arguing that the Font Software and the document are clearly two separate things, and that the non-applicability of the single requirement pertains to the document only, as the license says. If you would really push me, I would claim that the Font Software had already been embedded in another document, that was licensed under the OFL. I would borrow your script to show how this works. I would not win immediately. We would have a lot of fun discussing "document", "embedding" and "extraction" and other important terms in court. Which is fine, that's what it's for.
Okay, thanks for the tip. ;-)
Your suggestion on the OSI approval mailing list to change this sentence was already shot down informally by a lawyer who seems to think that this matter should not be fixed in a license. What I have been wondering about, is why you don't ask a proper lawyer to take a look at this (since you seem to care a lot), instead of starting a crusade against OFL.
Bruce Perens: How Many Open Source Licenses Do You Need? (IT Management) Posted Feb 20, 2009 9:26 UTC (Fri) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link] I will check with Larry, but I'm pretty sure that Larry means tha exact opposite of what you think. Larry is saying that the document could never be a derivative work of the font. He is not saying that the sentence in question does not give away all of your license rights forever.By the way, I don't know who you are. If you'd ping me via email, I will connect you with Larry directly. Bruce
Bruce Perens: How Many Open Source Licenses Do You Need? (IT Management) Posted Feb 20, 2009 11:24 UTC (Fri) by hppnq (subscriber, #14462) [Link] I will check with Larry
Great, thanks. I appreciate that.
I love the double negation! Maybe you could ask him to take a look at the OFL, instead of having him to talk to me? ;-) Thanks for the offer though.
Bruce Perens: How Many Open Source Licenses Do You Need? (IT Management) Posted Feb 23, 2009 10:16 UTC (Mon) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454) [Link]
> Larry is saying that the document could never be a derivative work of the
> font.
I'm quite surprised someone like Larry Rosen is making such a confusion.
Of course the original *text* used in the document is a separate work that could be licensed in many different ways. However the digital *document* (as in text + font + rules making sure one is used with the other) is clearly a derivative of the fonts. It may be not obvious for a corporate document using Arial but you have only to go on a typographer web site where he exhibits his compositions and the way he managed to balance a particular text, font and illustration to realise there is creativity involved. (and yes the USA may have specific font exemptions to avoid copyright requirements in that case and no that does not help at all font users in other countries).
In fact font embedding in digital documents was added precisely to preserve this kind of artistic composition. People who do not care about it just do not use embedding.
And licenses like the GPL are pretty unambiguous on the way GPL material could be used in larger works.
So specific clauses are required to shield users for the embedding case (not to mention professional foundries are very careful not to let anyone forget embedding requires special authorization). And they need to be written by a lawyer. I doubt you can just say "this is not a derivative" when it obviously is from the law POW.
Bruce Perens: How Many Open Source Licenses Do You Need? (IT Management) Posted Feb 24, 2009 9:50 UTC (Tue) by hppnq (subscriber, #14462) [Link] I'm quite surprised someone like Larry Rosen is making such a confusion. Ah, maybe he isn't: he is not not saying what you are saying. ;-) Follow the link given above, especially this mail addresses your points.
Bruce Perens: How Many Open Source Licenses Do You Need? (IT Management) Posted Feb 24, 2009 10:15 UTC (Tue) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454) [Link]
Did you have that in mind ?
« Software license may prohibit certain combinations of copyrightable work and copyrightable font--but not if they are open source licenses! Only
Then I'll point the painfully obvious: digital documents are redistributed too. (even if we forget about the printed special case)
Bruce Perens: How Many Open Source Licenses Do You Need? (IT Management) Posted Feb 24, 2009 11:01 UTC (Tue) by hppnq (subscriber, #14462) [Link] Did you have that in mind ? Not at all. I merely assumed some of the confusion you were speaking of was attributable to not having read the source, so I referred you to it. What is terribly obvious, is that you cannot create the BlahBlah font and use it to either allow or deny distribution of a digital document of which you are not the copyright holder. This seems more to the point, but I must admit I am not sure what you are trying to say.
Bruce Perens: How Many Open Source Licenses Do You Need? (IT Management) Posted Feb 24, 2009 12:13 UTC (Tue) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454) [Link]
Of course you can deny the distribution of a digital document that embeds your copyrighted font. That's how copyright works.
What you can not deny is the distribution of a document that does not include your work.
Bruce Perens: How Many Open Source Licenses Do You Need? (IT Management) Posted Feb 20, 2009 10:33 UTC (Fri) by ekj (subscriber, #1524) [Link]
That, too, depends on jurisdictions. Some jurisdictions are prone to accept by-the-letter interpretations of texts, even when it's clear to everyone that this was NOT what was intended by the one writing the text.
Other jurisdictions generally consider intent, so that if, for example, I write a document that on the overall balance CLEARLY intended to forbid a certain action, that is not voided, even if I misplace a comma somewhere, unintentionally reversing the meaning of a single sentence somewhere.
Still, I agree there'd be benefit in fixing that.
And what's up with the "cannot be sold alone", but "can be sold with software", does that mean if I want to sell the font, I need to include some software (ANY software) together with it ? Can the "software" be #!/bin/sh; cp fontfiles.wherever /usr/lib/fonts/wherever/
What's the purpose of this ? How does it differ from just outright allowing selling the font ?
Bruce Perens: How Many Open Source Licenses Do You Need? (IT Management) Posted Feb 20, 2009 11:22 UTC (Fri) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454) [Link]
> And what's up with the "cannot be sold alone", but "can be sold with
> software", does that mean if I want to sell the font, I need to include > some software (ANY software) together with it ? Can the "software" be > #!/bin/sh; cp fontfiles.wherever /usr/lib/fonts/wherever/
The great enemy of font creators are the people who skim the internet for font files, put them in a huge directory, and sell the result on cd/dvds.
They're ok with pretty much any other kind of distribution, and this clause is here to allow distributing fonts inside an installation package, while preventing basic leaching.
Bruce Perens: How Many Open Source Licenses Do You Need? (IT Management) Posted Feb 19, 2009 2:10 UTC (Thu) by i3839 (subscriber, #31386) [Link]
The wording is probably almost correct, but the problem is that it says that it doesn't have to remain under that license, effectively stripping it away when the fonts are used in a document. And once it gone it doesn't matter what it said or what its original intention was, because it doesn't apply anymore. You follow both the intent and letter of the license when you embed the font in a document. After that, you're free to do what you want.
If it had said that requirements a, b, c, ... do not apply for documents created using the Font Software, then it would have worked as intended, as the license doesn't disappear, but is mostly dormant when the fonts are embedded in a document.
IMHO this is common sense and you don't have to be an attorny to understand problems like this. That said, to word a license in such way that loopholes like this are avoided and still achieves what you want is more tricky, and attornies are probably highly trained to find legal loopholes in anything.
Bruce Perens: How Many Open Source Licenses Do You Need? (IT Management) Posted Feb 19, 2009 2:22 UTC (Thu) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link] The concept they needed there and did not have was "derivative work". It might have been sufficient to say "A document embedding this font shall not be considered a derivative work of the font."
Bruce Perens: How Many Open Source Licenses Do You Need? (IT Management) Posted Feb 19, 2009 6:02 UTC (Thu) by i3839 (subscriber, #31386) [Link]
Umm, not sure about that. I've read (Dutch) copyright laws and Berne convention, but couldn't find the term "derivative work" or anything similar. I think it's the much simpler spelling out of "copyright": The right to copy something, in this case fonts. The whole "derivate work" thing comes only into play when you have a license than wants to apply to the whole work. But as far as legal stuff goes I'm a nitwit.
That said, you're probably right that saying that the rest of the document doesn't fall under the font license would have been sufficient (or more simply, that the font license only applies to fonts and nothing else).
Bruce Perens: How Many Open Source Licenses Do You Need? (IT Management) Posted Feb 19, 2009 16:22 UTC (Thu) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link] In the Berne convention, it is Article 12, and is called called "Right of Adaptation".Sorry, I don't read Dutch. Is there an English version of Dutch copyright law? It's such a fundamental part of copyright that I'm sure it's there.
Bruce Perens: How Many Open Source Licenses Do You Need? (IT Management) Posted Feb 20, 2009 1:38 UTC (Fri) by i3839 (subscriber, #31386) [Link]
I think it's mostly the same as the Berne convention, or at least compatible. A friend of me was a law student, so he had the books. Wouldn't have a clue where it could be found online, or whether there's an English translation of it.
Article 12 in full:
> Article 12
This seems rather obvious, otherwise copyright would only apply to totally unmodified work, which is rarely the case.
So it seems I misunderstood what is meant with "derivative work", I thought it meant a work as a whole which contains (altered parts of) another work, not merely the altered parts themselves. Sorry for the confusion.
All in all it's quite fuzzy what they mean with "a work" anyway. For instance, how I read the stuff there's nothing preventing a program from using GPL libraries while it's not GPL compatible itself, because it are separate works, except if you consider loading the library as some form of copying, which doesn't seem to be the case (IIRC, there's an exception saying that you're always allowed to use a copyrighted work in its intended way: E.g. copying the CD content to PC and push it through the speakers, for programs to run them, etc). The GPL demands that such programs should fall under the GPL as well, but the GPL doesn't apply if the lib isn't distributed together with the program.
Bruce Perens: How Many Open Source Licenses Do You Need? (IT Management) Posted Feb 20, 2009 1:48 UTC (Fri) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link] The GPL demands that such programs should fall under the GPL as well, but the GPL doesn't apply if the lib isn't distributed together with the program.Some people think so, but some people think otherwise and it's not been tested in court. So, don't count on it being true. I tell my customers to honor the GPL across dynamic-linking boundaries, for their own safety.
Bruce Perens: How Many Open Source Licenses Do You Need? (IT Management) Posted Feb 20, 2009 2:56 UTC (Fri) by i3839 (subscriber, #31386) [Link]
Caution should be applied of course, but that works both ways. I'm looking at it from the GPLed lib's point of view, and I don't think I can count on the GPL (or any license) to prevent other programs to not use my lib.
Of course this is more of a theoretical problem, as I probably wouldn't choose the GPL for a library anyway, but I'm curious how people can think that it isn't allowed. As far as I can tell using a lib is not enough to be derived work, as you merely follow an interface, and hence copyright won't disallow things like that. Can you explain why some people think that the GPL can apply anyway?
It's not so clear... Posted Feb 20, 2009 15:24 UTC (Fri) by khim (guest, #9252) [Link] As far as I can tell using a lib is not enough to be derived work, as you merely follow an interface, and hence copyright won't disallow things like that. Actually it might - it depends on the interface. But what GPL does prevent is distribution of GPLed library and proprietary program as single package. The whole package is clearly derived work of GPLed library (it includes such library, after all) and so GPL applies. You can try to circumvent this by separate distribution of GPLed library and your program - but court may very well decide that the sole purpose of such a distribution was GPL circumvention. Thus basically the only sane uncovered possibility are "nVidia drivers": when GPLed part is distributed by one entity and proprietary part - by another, unrelated, one. And this is not particularry interesting case for 99% libraries out there...
Bruce Perens: How Many Open Source Licenses Do You Need? (IT Management) Posted Feb 22, 2009 0:52 UTC (Sun) by njs (guest, #40338) [Link]
> As far as I can tell using a lib is not enough to be derived work, as you merely follow an interface
Well, that's the question -- is the interface itself a creative work? When you write code that against the interface, does your code end up incorporating creative ideas expressed in that interface? It probably depends on all sorts of awful details in any given case.
Remember that something can be a derived work even if it incorporates no verbatim parts of the original -- look at character copyright, for instance! The rules for determining derivation are complex and poorly-defined (see [1] for a taste!)
So the ability of the GPL reach from a library to an apps using that library isn't ironclad, but there's a reason that you don't see people testing it in court, either...
[1] http://www.ladas.com/Patents/Computer/SoftwareAndCopyrigh...
Bruce Perens: How Many Open Source Licenses Do You Need? (IT Management) Posted Feb 24, 2009 3:30 UTC (Tue) by i3839 (subscriber, #31386) [Link]
I'm a technical person, and from my point of view, it looks very simple. For a C API, it's nothing else than a list of function names and their parameter lists, with a description of the data structures used and what the functions do. This is all factual information which isn't (or shouldn't be) copyrightable. More complicated header files with macros and inline functions may be copyrightable, but we're talking about the interface here, not header files.
Of course you can elevate it to an insane level and e.g. consider all output of a program potentially derivative work, or lose yourself in too high abstractions, in which cases it quickly becomes an impossible and unworkable situation.
No offence, but any system where you need millions and years to even solve a plain simple cases like SCO versus IBM is IMHO totally broken. In such a system no one wants to go to court for anything at all.
E.g. character copyright seems quite clear to me, a character is just something virtual, which makes it weird in a way, but it's still a creation, even if it's hard to pinpoint where it exist.
The non-verbatim part of programs is more the internal organisation, modularisation, interaction and communication, which is indeed vague for copyright. But merely using one library for its intended purpose is no way near that vagueness. It's a bit more vague when that library wasn't intended to be stand-alone and ripped out of an existing program. But stand-alone libraries are crystal clear IMHO.
Bruce Perens: How Many Open Source Licenses Do You Need? (IT Management) Posted Feb 24, 2009 5:45 UTC (Tue) by njs (guest, #40338) [Link]
I'm not sure what you're arguing now -- it sounds like you're talking about how things would work if you were in charge ("I'm a technical person", "you can...consider", "any system where ... is broken", "crystal clear IMHO"), which is fine, but I thought we were talking about the legal definition of derivative work, not our personal definitions. All I was arguing was that the legal definition of derivative work is, in fact, less clear than one might expect or prefer.
Also, umm... "internal organisation, modularisation, interaction and communication" -- aren't those *exactly* what a library interface is *about*?
Bruce Perens: How Many Open Source Licenses Do You Need? (IT Management) Posted Feb 24, 2009 21:31 UTC (Tue) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
there are explicit exceptions in copyright for interoperability. this is why lexmark lost it's lawsuit against clone printer cartridge manufacturers, even though they copies portions of code bit-for-bit those bits needed to be exactly the same for the cartridge to work and so were part of the interface
Bruce Perens: How Many Open Source Licenses Do You Need? (IT Management) Posted Feb 25, 2009 0:43 UTC (Wed) by i3839 (subscriber, #31386) [Link]
I'm describing how things work according to my interpretation of all that legal stuff.
> aren't those *exactly* what a library interface is *about*?
Only for internally used libraries. For stand-alone libraries it's their interface to other, independent programs, and it's a clear boundary between one work and others.
Bruce Perens: How Many Open Source Licenses Do You Need? (IT Management) Posted Feb 20, 2009 9:25 UTC (Fri) by hppnq (subscriber, #14462) [Link] there's nothing preventing a program from using GPL libraries while it's not GPL compatible itself, because it are separate works, except if you consider loading the library as some form of copying You can link GPL software to any software you like, and copy it a million times. But you may not be able to distribute the result of your work.
Bruce Perens: How Many Open Source Licenses Do You Need? (IT Management) Posted Feb 20, 2009 10:05 UTC (Fri) by i3839 (subscriber, #31386) [Link]
Of course. You can also take pictures of the Mona Lisa, print them out and draw as many moustaches as you want. That's not the point.
What I mean is, as long as you don't distribute the GPL library together with something not GPL which uses it, but only the latter, the GPL can't prevent that because it's out of the picture, as far as I can see.
Bruce Perens: How Many Open Source Licenses Do You Need? (IT Management) Posted Feb 20, 2009 11:14 UTC (Fri) by hppnq (subscriber, #14462) [Link] as long as you don't distribute the GPL library together with something not GPL which uses it, but only the latter, the GPL can't prevent that because it's out of the picture No, of course not. And the GPL does not try to prevent this from happening at all, of course. Even if you're not a lawyer, it is not difficult to at least get a basic grasp of what the GPL tries to prevent, and what not. Read it!
Bruce Perens: How Many Open Source Licenses Do You Need? (IT Management) Posted Feb 20, 2009 22:54 UTC (Fri) by i3839 (subscriber, #31386) [Link]
I agree with you, and think it's obvious as well, but some other people don't seem to see it that way. I'm curious why that is so.
|
|
||||||||||||